By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Better for all, Capitalism or Socialism?

Again, we are talking economics here, not politics. So I consider any country where greed drives people. So the UK, France, Germany, etc...

None of those countries are like China, where you can own a mom and pop corner store, but if you make Best Buy, the government takes it away from you.

I am talking about a country where success is rewarded with money. All of Western Europe.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:
Again, we are talking economics here, not politics. So I consider any country where greed drives people. So the UK, France, Germany, etc...

None of those countries are like China, where you can own a mom and pop corner store, but if you make Best Buy, the government takes it away from you.

I am talking about a country where success is rewarded with money. All of Western Europe.

 

that just means they have elements of capitalism, it dosent mean they are soley capitalists, many of thoose nations will have socialistic policys as well, like state healthcare and educaiton.



TheRealMafoo said:
That Guy said:
too long, didn't read.

Mafoo, I think its a little short sighted for you to claim a longer life expectancy in the name of capitalism. We also have programs like Unemployment, Social Security, and the FDIC, which are all pretty much social programs that were propped up in the past 100 years.

The United States was also a pretty Po-Dunk country back then; definitely not a world power. What changed it? Well two world wars pretty much wiped out the economies of the european countries, leaving only the United States standing as a world power.

Not that I am against capitalism, but lets not pretend that it is the sole reason why America has become a Superpower.

This thread is talking about economics more then politics. China is a world supper power, and it didn't get there with Capitalism.

No, I am talking about the advancements in science that have brought us to where we are today. The primary reason people live longer today is three things. Better food, better medication, and better work environments. I attribute all three of those to technology. I also attribute almost all technology advancements in the last 50 years to free markets.

 

oh but politics and economics are pretty much intertwined with each other, are they not?

China is a World Superpower, solely on the basis of of its population and cheap labor, IMO.  Remember that China is a fledgling nation, with maybe 50 years under its current regime (if that). They basically had to start over after WW2 as well, so I think comparing China to the US is sort of like comparing apples to oranges at this point.

For the sake of arguing with you, I would say that the food isn't really that much better. More processed? Yes. More plentiful? Yes, but in part to government subsidies (which of course is somewhat socialistic). Better work environments? C'mon man, that's HUGELY in part to the labor unions! 

The unions are what fought for 8 hour work days and 2 days off on the weekends! Same goes for stuff like Workman's comp and safer work environments. Back in the day, people were working in steel mills, 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. If you happened to get injured on the job, you got laid off, no benefits!

 

 



addendum: not that I am particularly a union guy, but I know a bunch of friends who work in the union and they've fought to get some benefits that shady contractors likely would have cheated out of them if they had the chance.

Unions can sometimes monopolize labor and also bring down industries (the automakers, anyone?), so they can be just as evil as the corporations sometimes!

 

Again, we are talking economics here, not politics. So I consider any country where greed drives people. So the UK, France, Germany, etc...


None of those countries are like China, where you can own a mom and pop corner store, but if you make Best Buy, the government takes it away from you.

I am talking about a country where success is rewarded with money. All of Western Europe.

the UK, France, and Germany are all pretty socialistic, IMO. They have way more taxes than the USA does, and they also have crazy things like Gun Control and Nationalised Health Care.

 



That Guy said:

the UK, France, and Germany are all pretty socialistic, IMO. They have way more taxes than the USA does, and they also have crazy things like Gun Control and Nationalised Health Care.

 

 

You should really read all of this thread, as it's already made clear, that calling the UK, France and Germany socialistic is simply an American thing based on a common misconception of the word socialism.



Around the Network
chapset said:

one question from the OP what make you think the one who got the promotion was the hardest at work, how do you know he didn't know the management better then the others?Don't you think the other 4 didn't work as hard as the one who got promote for the sake of the compagnie but only one of them got rewarded, like you said all of them were competant but only one got the job if he got hit by a bus the next day am pretty sure the other four would be able to do his job. The bad thing about capitalism is a lot do the job but only a few get the rewards, if a group of scientist manage to cure cancer only the guy in charge will get the nobel prize only him will get the millions only him will be remember by history, and to me that's a bunch of bullshit. That's the same with the ceo's getting millions when their subordonates are has usefull as them


 

@mafoo I asked the same question on one of the first pages and you didn't answer on that. What to do you think about this dilemma?



Socialism never works, they all talk about bringing equality but they forget that such thing is impossible. Even most succesful Socialist goverments like Attle's Labour in the UK as always run out of money, and start taking money from everyone.




SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said:

 

In the US, the average salary for someone my age, is about 60k. I am about to turn 40, so I would guess from that graph at about 60K

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Country=United_States/Salary/by_Age

 

 

ah, fair enough, in the US then, i wouldnt consider you Rich

edit: 54.6k, ok, id still consider you pretty well off on that here, its still more than double what either of my parents earn.

 

 



TheRealMafoo said:

I also attribute almost all technology advancements in the last 50 years to free markets.

That simply isnt true.  You can definately count anything that has to do with space and satellites as out of the picture for the free market, the free market would never fund something that expensive with so much risk and uncertainity.  Other things like nuclear power and computers also comes to mind.



fmc83 said:
chapset said:

one question from the OP what make you think the one who got the promotion was the hardest at work, how do you know he didn't know the management better then the others?Don't you think the other 4 didn't work as hard as the one who got promote for the sake of the compagnie but only one of them got rewarded, like you said all of them were competant but only one got the job if he got hit by a bus the next day am pretty sure the other four would be able to do his job. The bad thing about capitalism is a lot do the job but only a few get the rewards, if a group of scientist manage to cure cancer only the guy in charge will get the nobel prize only him will get the millions only him will be remember by history, and to me that's a bunch of bullshit. That's the same with the ceo's getting millions when their subordonates are has usefull as them


 

@mafoo I asked the same question on one of the first pages and you didn't answer on that. What to do you think about this dilemma?

 

The restaurant never promoted a manager to a GM of the same restaurant. I assume even if you gave it to the right guy, the others would have some resentment. They were always transferred. Also, the chain was always opening up new locations (at the time I worked there, at a rate of one a week). The GM jobs for the new stored were filled for these with promotion as well.

I am sure some people got promoted unfairly, but if that happened, there was always a chance the restaurant would suffer. Most GM's were looking to be Regional Managers (even more money), so they had a stake in doing the right thing as well. In this system, if you work well, you will get a GM job someday.

It's not perfect, but nothing is, and I think this is far better then any real world scenario I can think of.